MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
==Writing guidelines==
*Separate [[Wii U]] audio files from the ones on the [[GBA]] ([[Talk:Mario Circuit (GBA)#Separate Audio Files|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[Choco Cake]] with [[Chocolate Cake]] ([[Talk: Choco Cake#Merge Choco Cake with Chocolate Cake|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split the Paper Mario boos from [[Big Boo]] into a separate article. ([[Talk:Big_Boo#Split_the_Paper_Mario_boos_into_a_separate_article|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Decide if [[Porcupuffer]]s are [[Cheep Cheep]]s ([[Talk:Porcupuffer#Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Seperate [[Payday Waystation]] into a separate article ([[Talk:Shy Guy's Perplex Express|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Blurp (Yoshi's Story)]] with [[Cheep Cheep]] ([[Talk:Blurp (Yoshi's Story)#Merge Blurp (Yoshi's Story) with Cheep Cheep|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 
==Writing Guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==New features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
 
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.
==Removals==
===Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki===
For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like [[Gloomba]] or [[Fire Bro]] from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. [[Goomba]] and [[Hammer Bro]]), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why:


#'''It's wrong''' - In science, "subspecies" denotes different populations of a species that are genetically, geographically, behaviourally, and/or morphologically distinct, yet still similar enough for interbreeding to occur freely when possible. What ''we'' call "subspecies" are ''not'' actually subspecies at all: they are completely different species, whether we're comparing [[Lakitu]]s to [[Koopa Troopa]]s or [[Deep Cheep]]s to [[Cheep Cheep]]s. There is no reason why we should so wilfully misuse very specific scientific terminology incorrectly when there are other options available like simply "type", "variation" or just plain "species". It's not like "beta elements" where there is no umbrella term and we have to make due with what readers are most familiar with: everyone already understands what "species" means, unlike the muddled "subspecies" (which even scientists argue about).
Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.
#'''It's speculation''' - It's clear enough when things are based on other things to whatever extent, but classifying some enemies as "subspecies" instead of "species" has always struck me as presumptuous. Where exactly does the line get drawn? Some things like [[Koopa Paratroopa]]s are rather basic and fundamental in their own rights, with many derived species of their own, yet are still called "subspecies". And what about things like [[Shady Paratroopa]] that could be a subspecies of Koopa Paratroopas ''or'' Shady Koopas? Only a few sets of differently-coloured/powered RPG enemies and things like the red and blue ''PM'' [[Spike Top#Official profiles and statistics|Spike Top]]s really fit the proper "subspecies" definition, but we already established that we're not using science here, so all that's left are judgment calls being passed off as hard distinctions that don't actually exist in official material.
#'''It's misleading''' - Despite the liberties we're taking with the term, "subspecies" still inherently sounds like it requires close relatedness between species (based on their names and/or appearances), but for the sake of navigation and connectivity between articles, sometimes it's useful to be able to reflect the conceptual relatedness between rather different species, such as [[Clubba]]s and [[Chargin' Chuck]]s being related to the more standard Koopa species. Having relaxed terminology would make this easier (i.e. potentially [[Talk:Bandit#Decide if Bandits are a sub-species of Shy Guys|avoiding]] some [[Talk:Porcupuffer#Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps|TPPs]] and [[Talk:Snifit#Are_they_Shy_Guys.3F|other such discussions]]) and result in less cross-talk between users operating on differing definitions of "subspecies".
#'''It's inconsistent''' - As well as murky definitions and three different ways to spell the term ("subspecies"/"sub-species"/"sub species") being found across the wiki, and even side-by-side in single articles, there are also plenty of cases where single subjects are being called both "species" and "subspecies". For example, [[Ice Piranha Plant]] bears both [[:Category:Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:New Super Mario Bros. U Species|Category:NSMBU Species]], is listed as a "sub-species" in the [[Piranha Plant]] infobox, and is part of the "species" list in {{tem|Piranha Plants}}. This is not good.


Between the disconnect with how the real world uses the word, and the different definitions, applications and spellings throughout the wiki, there is really only one way to sum up the use of "subspecies" around here: '''''it's confusing''''', and we should get rid of it. Specifically, we should do the following:
For example, let's say for [[Luigi]] in his appearance in ''[[Mario Sports Superstars]]'', there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:


*Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc.
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''
*Delete [[:Category:Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Yoshi Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:Wario Sub-Species]]. The equivalent "Species" categories exist [[:Category:Species|for]] [[:Category:Yoshi Species|all]] [[:Category:Donkey Kong Species|four]] [[:Category:Wario Species|cases]], but ideally, ''game-specific'' "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether).
*Replace the "sub_species" variable in {{tem|Species-infobox}} with "derived_species". At the same time, "species_origin" should be replaced with "parent_species", for the sake of uniformity (there's already a "related species" variable for similar species not directly based on or providing the basis for the subject in question) and killing two birds with one stone since we'll have to fix the infoboxes anyway; this second change is from [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_42#Set_Clear_Rules_as_to_What_.22Species_Origin.22_Means|this cancelled proposal]] and its [[forum:34578.0|corresponding forum thread]] (both of which debate the use of "subspecies").
*Add "subspecies" to [[MarioWiki:Good_Writing#Frequently_misused_terms|the list of frequently misused terms]].


This will affect A LOT of articles and will take time to gradually roll out, but I think it's worth doing. There is no good reason why we need to stay inconsistent, confusing and misinformed about how we go about defining the species of the ''Mario'' series.
The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per proposal. The zoologist half of me has wanted to eradicate this accursed term from the wiki for over seven years now. No more.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Walkazo. And yes, even though the term is used to described fictional species, it still gave me misinformation when thinking about actual sub-species. That's not right. I admit I am a bit pedantic when it comes to vocabulary and jargon but honestly, I'm pedantic for the very reason of being fed misinformation, which isn't the ideal way to learn things.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
#{{User|ShyGuy8}} Per Walkazo and Baby Luigi. Yes, that's not right. In fact, I think it should be ''related spiecies'' instead of ''subspiecies''.
#{{User|Kart Player 2011}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Yes, remove ALL instances of it. I was misinformed about the true definition of "subspecies" this entire time I was in this wiki. This is a personal account, but if it confuses me, it's bound to confuse a lot of other readers. This wiki leads us to think "subspecies" means a derived or related organism even though the technical term is "some differences but capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring", especially provided that the "producing fertile offspring" part is the fundamental definition of a species. In that sense, subspecies do NOT denote separate species; the basic Linnaeus names have two names, but a third one is given if it's a subspecies. "Derived species", "parent species", "related species", these are all more correct and much more precise substitutes, making them vastly superior to the vague, confusing, incorrect "subspecies". In writing, we aim for precision and accuracy, and this proposed changes does exactly what is the gold standard in writing, so, as someone who admits of being very pedantic at times (the scathing criticism to singular "they" and contractions), it's not surprising that I want these changed enacted. This time, though, it's not pedantry, it's about being precise and accurate. It's been seven years, but better late than never to undo all that damage.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all, but take note of the rare few [[Pale Piranha|official]] cases.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Andymii}} Per all; a nicely crafted argument. I just find it funny that we are now debating over scientific terminology in a wiki about talking mushrooms and turtle kings.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Per proposal. (I also notice a bit of support due to the inadvertent spread of misinformation - "Beta" is rightfully considered a misused term as well, but I really do think a better label than "Beta elements" should be considered since it's a somewhat similar situation.)
#{{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}} Per all.
#{{User|Binarystep}} <s>my younger self would hate me for this</s> Per all.
#{{User|Lumastar}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
@SmokedChili: We ''can'' make an exception, but it's going to break consistency, and it won't be unreasonable to assume it's another species (just how people assumed all those [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-eyed_junco dark-eyed juncos] were separate species), and, besides, Nintendo was ''very'' wrong about terminology before (most blatantly, the most egregious and irresponsible usage of "remix" I've ever seen in official media: ''Super Smash Bros. 4''). {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:09, 5 June 2015 (EDT)
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)
 
Commenting on the Shady Paratroopa part, I think we should just use the most basic enemy and say its a derivative (or whatever word we decide on using) of Koopa Troopa. {{User|Magikrazy}}
:I actually feel like it'd be better to say it's a derivative of both Shady Koopa and Paratroopa, rather than listing derivatives of derivatives on the most basic pages, at that makes for some potentially unwieldy lists. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::Per. [[Spiked Gloomba]]s can be derived from both Spiked Goombas and Gloombas, easy to list it as derived from ''both''. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:50, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 
==Changes==
===Super Mario Land 1 and 2 confirmed apart of the ''main series'' by Nintendo: Super Mario wiki should change accordingly===
For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzERrLY-_9s <br>
===Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork===
[http://videogamemm.com/main/sites/default/files/images/DSCN1748.preview.JPG]
This proposal will address the bloat some image categories have and make them easier to navigate.


As one can see, Nintendo did not include the land games as part of the main Mario series titles during Mario's 25th anniversary 5 years ago. This has lead people such as myself to believe that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of their own series. However, as of May 29, 2015. Nintendo has updated Mario's 30th anniversary site to include all the main series Mario titles. In this list is Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. As shown, this is included in both the American and Japanese versions of the site.
Why is this useful? It makes adding to galleries or finding images to replace much easier. If you want to retake screenshots from a game, you can go to the screenshots category to find them. If you have sprite rips to replace, there's a category for that. The same goes for finding images from a game that aren't on the gallery already and being able to sort them more efficiently. This is also how we divide up character galleries already, such as [[Gallery:Mario (2010-2019)]].


http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/ <br>
Now, I can see a few edge cases, like when games have screenshots of themselves for credits images (i.e. ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)]]''). I would still classify these as assets, since they are ripped from the game. Artwork that is used in smaller forms in-game, such as in ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'', would be classified as artwork if externally released or an asset if it was ripped from the game files. Edge cases shouldn't be too common and they're easy to work out: it's not too different from how we license images or put them in character or subject galleries.
http://supermario.nintendo.com/#/history/


Due to this confirmation by Nintendo, all articles on Super Mario Wiki should be changed to fit this new information. Such articles as the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario Series'']] articles should be changed to add the two Land games, and articles such as ''[[Super Mario Land (series)|Super Mario Land Series]]'' articles should most likely be deleted entirely due to their interference of the first two Super Mario Land games being apart of the main Mario series. Other changes being the chronological order of Mario titles. An example being, changing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." To. "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth installment in the Super Mario series."
I think the name "assets" would be more useful in shorthand than "sprites and models," in addition to covering textures, so I propose for the category to be called that, but I can change it if there's opposition. The global images category can still exist in the case there's scans, merchandise, video screenshots, or such images that cannot be further categorized.


These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. This is why the Super Mario Land games should now officially be considered apart of the main Mario series by Super Mario wiki.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
 
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Proposer''': {{User|thenintendostooge}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|thenintendostooge}} Per my proposal. Due to the recent confirmation by Nintendo themselves, the wiki should have articles changed to fit this new confirmation.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Aokage}} More recent stuff takes precedence. It doesn't really make sense to exclude the Land games from the main series, anyway.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I support this in principle, as long as there's room for discretion on what gets split and what gets left alone. A game with only ten or so pieces of artwork doesn't need a separate category for them, they can just stay in the main images category for that game. Otherwise, this seems useful, I just don't want users to go overboard by purely following the letter of this proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I've tried to see if an image I wanted to use was already uploaded via the category, which would encourage me to make the text and get the article up. Due to the sheer number of images, this is a bad idea. This proposal will make that less of a bad idea for cases where an asset or artwork is being searched for.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} hell yea


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - While the 30th anniversary stuff is more recent, the fact that the 25th anniversary excluded the ''SML'' games shouldn't be ignored, and it should be kept in mind that unlike the ''[[Super Mario History 1985-2010]]'' booklet (which is more complete than the linked-to poster and video), the 30th anniversary stuff leaves out all the remakes (i.e. ''SMAS'' and the ''SMA'' series), and the US version of the website also leaves out ''Lost Levels''. Plus, neither celebration included [[Super_Mario_(series)#Ports.2C_remakes.2C_and_downloadable_content|all the random ''SMB'' remakes and whatnot]], whereas ''we'' '''do''' need to take everything into account, from the remakes to the conflicting and ever-changing stances Nintendo takes on its material, and then organize them in the way that makes the most sense. And I still think it makes more sense to keep the ''SML'' games separate in History sections, templates and categories (this is actually a big change with far-reaching consequences being proposed here: not just [[Super Mario (series)]] and a few articles' opening lines), given how different the series is, its historic separation from the rest of the games, and most of all, the fact that the series straddles both ''SM'' and ''[[Wario Land (series)|Wario Land]]'' (awkward at the best of times, but it'd be worse if no bridge series is used or acknowledged). And for all we know, the 35th anniversary will be back to separating them anyway. But I ''do'' think the ''SM'' series page should include ''SML'' (and ''Yoshi's Island'') somehow, like how it's got the remakes listed separately - but certainly not ''instead'' of the [[Super Mario Land (series)|''SML'' series page]], especially considering that ''WL:SML3'' and ''VB:WL'' definitely '''aren't''' ''SM'' material, yet should still be grouped with the first two games ''somewhere'', as well as in appropriate History sections (same reason why [[Super Mario Advance (series)|''SMA'' gets its own series page]], despite being mostly part of ''SM'' and otherwise part of [[Yoshi (series)|''Yoshi'']]).
#{{User|ShyGuy8}} Per Walkazo
#{{User|1337star}} The ''Super Mario Land'' games are incredibly distinct from the "main" ''Mario'' games, mostly by dint of being developed by [[Gunpei Yokoi]]/Nintendo R&D1 rather than Miyamoto/Nintendo EAD, and our articles should reflect that. Otherwise, per Walkazo.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Walkazo, in the comments and in the vote.
#{{User|Lumastar}} Per all. While they are platformers with similar gameplay, the ''Land'' games are unique from other ''Mario'' platformers at the end of the day.


====Comments====
====Comments====
@Walkazo. Potential change does not warrant the act of keeping something the same. The wiki is to be based on current viewpoints of Nintendo which is the lore creator. It's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. If we were to not follow Nintendo's viewpoint, any viewpoint could be established based on the person's own imagination. "What if Nintendo decides to officially change Birdo to Ostro to avoid confusion?" This is irrelevant as it is based on what Nintendo finds true and not true. "If" cannot be a factor of whether or not we apply the land games or not. That would be based on our own assumptions and our assumptions are endless. We must use Nintendo's current viewpoint to stay relevant in the Mario franchise. If not the wiki becomes outdated with old information. {{unsigned|Thenintendostooge}}
This is already being done (e.g. [[:Category:Mario Kart Tour item icons]]). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 11:02, December 23, 2024 (EST)
:My point isn't that Nintendo ''might'' change their minds again, but rather, that they really doesn't give a crap about "lore", "true"ness or keeping its stories straight when it comes to ''Mario'': they flip-flop about stuff all the time and information is often inconsistent, and as a result, the only way to maintain easy, logical organization is for the wiki to think for ourselves sometimes, like with splitting, merging and grouping enemies based on facts other than plain names, or deciding on how to organize our game pages. For in-universe stuff like the Kooplaings' paternity, our hands are tied and we need to give the new story prominence (but still mention the old story), but this is a different matter: as long as we acknowledge on all the relevant pages that Nintendo currently considers ''SML'' 1 & 2 as part of the ''SM'' series, and didn't before, whether or not we follow up with shuffling History sections, categories, lists and templates is up to us, based on whether we think it will or won't be a better way to present and organize the information.  - {{User|Walkazo}}


Whether Nintendo cares about the Mario canon or not is not for us to decide. We can mention how Nintendo used to not consider the Land games being apart of the main series, but we must also tell the reader Nintendo's current stand point. An example being starwars. The lore is changing all the time, however, the star wars wiki does not keep the old lore as canon. It mentions how it used to be canon, but supports the current standpoint of lucas film if we like it or not. There is much Mario lore that Nintendo has dropped that has been official in the past. This is not a situation like the koopalings where the creator of Mario says they are not Bowsers kids, but this is the whole company of Nintendo saying that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of the main series. Both in Japan, and all over the World. I know it sounds like a lot of work for us to have to update so many articles. If there is official information with no way to disprove it, it CANNOT be denied. All official Mario information must be used in Mario wiki. One could argue that the past has more info, but that does not make it relevant. Over time things become outdated and it is Nintendo that updates it. We must accept what Nintendo updates. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


@Walkazo - I'm not completely confident in either choice right now, but remakes/rereleases were never a necessary mention in official celebrations since it's understood that they're not exactly the original titles (we certainly don't count them as such, either), so I'm not sure why they're factored in the counter-argument... (I must say, ''Super Mario 3D Land'' makes sense with its namesake included.) [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
==Changes==
===Broaden the scope of the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template and its variations===
With the [[Template talk:Unreferenced#Delete or be more specific|previous proposal]] having passed with being more specific as the most voted, I've come up with a proposal about the possibility to make the {{tem|rewrite}}, {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and {{tem|rewrite-remove}} templates more specific. As you can see, these templates are missing some smaller text. As such, I am just wondering if there is a possibility to have the smaller text added to the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki>, and <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> templates.


@LinkTheLefty- Indeed, the remakes have never been mentioned to be apart of the main Super Mario titles. As we all know, Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not remakes of any main series Mario game. Unless someone has any evidence to prove that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not apart of the main series, and since Nintendo has stated they are apart of the main series as of now, it is only right to have Super Mario wiki state the same. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
First of all, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


:My point is that what works for Nintendo for their celebration stuff doesn't necessarily work for us, since they're cherry-picking lists of showy platformers while we're trying to document every single game and present all that info in the clearest way possible. They already cut out plenty of remakes and obscure games that we can't, and they don't need to worry about awkward things like ''SML'' and ''SML2'' having a direct sequel (''WK:SML3'') that's also the start of a separate series, and another followup that never got finished (''VB Mario Land'') and wouldn't've fit in either ''SM'' or ''WL'' anyway. As long as we're basing out decisions on facts, we're allowed to make judgment calls when splitting, merging or reclassifying iffy enemy situations and whatnot, and similarly, we're also allowed to think outside the box a bit when it comes to dealing with iffy series situations. Like I said in my vote, the first two ''SML'' series games should be acknowledged on [[Super Mario (series)]] (that page is missing a lot of remakes too, but I digress), but they should remain separate when it comes to overall wiki organization. (On a side note, my guess is that ''SM3DL'' is the reason why the games are included this time around, unlike in 2010, although besides the name, like every other ''SM'' game, it has nothing to do with ''SML'' or its sequel at all.) - {{User|Walkazo}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
::Yeah, you do have a point in how Nintendo cannot celebrate all Mario games they acknowledge into one anniversary game, or they'll be here all day. But that they picked Super Mario Land out of all games alongside games like Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and even the forgotten Super Mario Bros. 2 does feel significant. As of now, however, I'm still supporting still holding out how Nintendo really treats Super Mario Land. This is a rather big change that will affect the corresponding history section, so I feel like acting carefully is the best decision to make when it comes to this. Still, Super Mario Land being placed alongside the other major games still means something... {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:48, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten'''.
</div>
----
However, once the proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>
</pre>


Then when do you propose is the right time? Nintendo did say that they would talk more about Mario's 30th anniversary during E3 2015, so maybe till then? I do not think we should wait to long on this. We cannot wait another 10 years to see if Nintendo still counts the land games as apart of the main series because that would make this wiki outdated. Although it is very understandable to be questioning if Nintendo will keep it apart in the future or not, it is very important to keep the wiki up to date on Nintendo's standpoint. We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding. If not we would not have a wiki based on Nintendo's Mario, but rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be. I know it is a lot of work and a huge overhaul for the wiki. Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair. The sooner we start editing, the more our readers know more about this information. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}}.</small>
</div>
----
And another thing—the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


:I'm on the fence be. If this Super Mario Land categorization feels isolated, in other words, continues to feel discourse, as I said, it's a lot of work. I'd wait for perhaps one or two more years (not ten, where did you get that figure from?)jointed from the mainstream games, more so than Super Mario Bros. 2, this work we're proposing would essentially be a waste of time and effort for our editors. And no editor would like that. I think the categorization works as it does, although I do admit that the organization is still an issue, ''but'', logical and convenient organization sometimes works over company ideals, especially when the company can be all over the place with the Mario games. I don't think you've really refuted 'kazo's points though, as you've just reiterated what you said earlier.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


:"We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding."
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:Nintendo's understanding is putting the Super Mario Land games in the same series as Super Mario series. This is the only evidence in favor of reorganizing the info, and we have several reasons to keep Super Mario Land as separate: very disjointed, obscure game, hardly any reappearances from enemies to worlds to music in the future games, and that it was left out of an anniversary game that was very limited in itself does mean something. This is why I'd rather wait and see any future actions of what Nintendo might do to the Super Mario Land series.
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
----
Lastly, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


:"Rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be"
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:No, we're not saying that we're writing the Mario series as how we interpret; we're saying that we and Nintendo have different methods of ''organization'', and Nintendo hasn't had this problem because they aren't and, so far, never required to cover the Mario series in the same scope as us.
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have <u>content</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): ???
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s):{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


:" Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair."
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:We shouldn't be ignoring it, but my biggest problem with this proposal is changing long-established structure because "it appeared in a Mario anniversary game". Of course, that game is fairly significant, but I don't think it proves a lot. I did say it meant something for Super Mario Land to appear alongside the bigger games, but so far, it's one game. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:44, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have content '''removed''' for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
----
That will be a perfect idea to make the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template and its variations as more specific as the {{tem|media missing}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} templates. That way, we'll be able to add smaller text to the remaining [[:Category:Notice templates|notice templates]] in the future.


Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person. One could argue that Super Mario bros 2 (U.S.A) is too obscure to be considered a main series Mario title, though we all know it is. Another example being Super Mario Sunshine. Very different environment, no standard Mario enemies (Koopas, Goombas, etc), and a very different gameplay mechanic involving F.L.U.D.D. Although these two games are very different from other main series Mario titles, they are still apart of the main series. Even with their mass differences, they all keep the same design, they are platformers. Super Mario land 1 and 2 are both platformers that follow heavily on the 2d Mario aspect. Mario still grabs mushrooms, still defeats enemies, still fights bosses, and completes levels in similar manner to the other Mario games.
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to December 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT


This is not a simple anniversary game, this is an entire celebration recognizing that the Super Mario Land games are apart of the main Super Mario series. Posters, commercials, and celebration videos will all recognize this. For Nintendo to recognize these games for Mario's 30th anniversary celebration is huge. Saying it is all apart of one small game is a little extravagant. Please don't take this as rude in anyway, as I don't want to offend anyone, but fear of a lot of work shows laziness. Although it is a lot of work, it is our job to tell our readers. If it will take 1-2 years to tell our readers. We can at least delete absolutes, such as "Super Mario Land is not considered apart of the Super Mario series." As shown on the Super Mario Land (series) article.
====Support====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal


"not ten, where did you get that figure from?"
====Oppose====
What I said was not actually sarcasm. My estimates are based on when Mario's 40th anniversary occurs. As Nintendo will most likely bring back up the main series on Mario's 40th anniversary, it makes sense for me to think that the wiki would wait that long to see if Nintendo confirmed it again. You could argue that I could have just said 5 years based on Mario's 35th anniversary. But the chances of Nintendo celebrating this big again are more low and is not as big as a 40th anniversary. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
#{{User|Altendo}} As far as I can tell, the proposal that was linked added parameters that allowed what was supposed to be referenced to be referenced. This one simply adds a subtitle to the bottom of each template. "Be more specific" does not mean saying general information and helpful links, but rather exactly what needs to be done; in terms of that, the existing templates not only all already have parameters, but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating|filling them out is enforced]]. As [[User:Nightwicked Bowser|Nightwicked Bowser]] said, "Be more specific - Similar to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating|this proposal]], what exactly needs references must be specified in the template when putting it in the article. A parameter for this will still need to be added." This only adds a subtitle and does not make this "more specific". As for the changes, this is actually harmful in some way, as the <nowiki>(tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})</nowiki> tag will be added to the subtitle, rather than the main body, which could make it more confusing in my opinion. Feel free to update this and add in what "more specific" actually means, or just change this to "add subtitles" and change the location of <nowiki>(tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})</nowiki> to the main body, but until then, my vote is staying here.
#{{User|Mario}} Best to keep things simple with these improvement templates.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Mario.


:Well, a lot of the weird ''SMS'' things got incorporated into the both subsequent ''SM'' games and the series at large, like Petey Piranha, Bowser Jr., Toadsworth, Gooper Blooper, Piantas, Cataquacks, FLUDD references and Isle Delfino locations in spinoffs. ''SMS'' also included a few regular enemies, like Bob-ombs, Bullet Bills, Boos, Chain Chomps, Pokeys, Bloopers, Cheep Cheep, a Monty Mole boss, Peach as the damsel-in-distress, and Bowser as the final boss. By contrast, ''SML'' has Mario, (Super) Mushrooms, Star(men) and ''nothing'' else, with nothing recurring save for Tatanga in ''SML2'' and Daisy reappearing in spinoffs only, with possible but unconfirmed Sarasaland locations to go along with her sometimes. ''SML2'' is better off in the using-recurring-enemies department, even a bit better off than ''SMS'', but it still doesn't ''add'' anything to the ''SM'' series, unlike ''SMS'' which was clearly embraced as from the start. The only thing it did was add Wario to the series, and the first thing ''he'' did was launch his own spinoff series with ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3'', which really just emphasizes why subsuming ''SML'' into ''SM'' is a bad idea: it has as much to do with ''WL'' as the ''SM'' games, and reflecting that bridge existence by keeping it separate from both is the least awkward way to try and deal with it (with ''WL:SML3'' either being with the rest of ''WL'' or the rest of ''SML'' depending on the content in question - but it certainly wouldn't do to put it with ''SM'', ever). You can ignore ''SML'' and ''SML2'' and the rest of the series will stay exactly the same (and so far, we ''have'' ignored it without issue), but the same can't be said for any of the other non-remake games; even ''Lost Levels'' added new stuff, like Luigi's different jump mechanics. - {{User|Walkazo}}
====Comments====
::''Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person.'' While it is true that obscurity can be subjective, what is generally known is that the Super Mario Land are a far deviant from any Mario game, and it rarely gets mentioned in other Mario games, hence why it's perfectly appropriate to say they're obscure. The term "obscure" is a relative term regardless, and using it to describe the Super Mario Land series in comparison with other Super Mario games is reasonable considering that, as Walkazo has stated, has been barely referenced throughout the entire realm of the Mario series whereas the rest of the Super Mario games have at one point. The Super Mario platformers are a highly popular and well-known brand, the Super Mario Land, while it could be about as popular, isn't remarkable as well known as any other entry of the Mario series, and is extremely deviant from it, is fine to be its own separate thing. Walkazo has already proposed a solution to this muddy categorizing and I agree with her on using that. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:15, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 
Although Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have had less of an impact with less references, to say the Land games did nothing to add on to the Super Mario series in the future is false. Such example as the director of Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario 3D Land, in an interview with IGN. Koichi Hayashida (the director) said that when Mario shoots a fireball in Super Mario 3D Land it bounces off the wall. He said this was taken from Super Mario Land as he had so much fun having the "Super Ball" bounce off the wall in the game. Interview can be read below.


http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/12/making-mario-magic-the-interview
Here's how I would fix some things:


Even easter eggs have occurred from Super Mario Land. An example being in Super Mario 3D Land, one can see a flying saucer believed to be Tatanga flying through the sky. Easter egg can be seen in video below.
First of all, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smwnedFs8I8
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten'''.
</div>
----
However, once the proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>
</pre>


Impact cannot be a factor whether or not the Land games are included. If Nintendo refers to the Land games as part of the main series then it should be so. Development team can also not be used as a counter argument because many other Nintendo franchises have done the same. Although the Land games were not made by EAD, that is not a counter argument. The Legend of Zelda games oracle of ages and oracle of seasons were made by Capcom, yet Nintendo refers to them as apart of the main Zelda series. If one could use the argument of impact, then oracle of ages and seasons should not be apart of the main Zelda series because it has had little to no references in future games. Another example being Metroid. Many teams have worked on Metroid such as EAD, Retro Studios, and Team Ninja. Many of these arguments cannot be used against why the Land games should not be included.{{User|Thenintendostooge}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' for the following reasons:<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}}.</small>
</div>
----
And another thing—the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


btw, @Walkazo- I can already tell we are going to be big rivals on this wiki XD.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


:That is hardly any influence to the Mario series other than an extremely minor nod and a speculative Easter Egg. Hardly anything from Super Mario Land 1 & 2 has been put in later Mario games, down right to the music. Walkazo is correct: Super Mario Land is a heavily disjointed Mario game with no impact in most Mario games. It's great that it has its section in an anniversary game, showing that Nintendo hasn't ''completely'' ignored it, but based on how little impact it has made, it might not even exist. :/ No, we editors aren't pretending it didn't exist or it's a "fake" Mario game.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information for the following reasons:<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
----
Lastly, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


:In this case, impact on the entire series is a good indicator on how the Land games should be grouped. Nintendo hasn't had any official word on it, so we're left to organize with our own standards. Unlike Mario, ''The Legend of Zelda'' games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; ''all'' Mario games are ambiguously canon, even Hotel Mario and Mario is Missing, even though those aren't acknowledged by Nintendo. We're not using developer teams as an argument here (except for l337star, who brought it up, but that's a reason the games are so distinct rather than "it's developed by these guys, so it's a different game"; his argument still has problems, but it's not my main thrust) and I wasn't intending to either. As we stated, Nintendo doesn't need to cover the Mario series in the same scope as we do. As for your argument "fear of a lot of work shows laziness", you're oversimplifying it. What I'm arguing is this proposal is, as I stated earlier is "this proposal is changing long-established structure because 'it appeared in a Mario anniversary game'." It's not a very compelling reason for me or other editors apparently, to start devoting hard work. We will devote hard work to wikis, if you see from our previous proposals. Finally, the final argument is how we have Super Mario Land 3, which is the first game in a new nonMario series. You haven't proposed any solutions to that potential problem if we have the Super Mario Land games integrated into the same section as Super Mario Bros. 2. It might be convenient for Nintendo to select only Super Mario Land 1 & 2 to showcase that "yeah, they exist", but we have to consider all three Super Mario Lands and that's a problem for us.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have <u>content</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): ???
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed''' {{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reasons:{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


:In the meantime, it's good you're here for a discussion because it's not very often we have a user willing to go on long debates. :){{User:Mario/sig}} 00:49, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have content '''removed''' for the following reason(s):<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>


I should be in bed, but I love my Mario talk so here comes another novel XD.
This should fix some things, and I also recommend you change the title or at least context of this proposal. If so, then I might change my vote. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 19:58, December 9, 2024 (EST)
:I {{plain link|https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=4457576|fixed this problem}} for you. How does it look? {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 09:40, December 10, 2024 (EST)


Once again, influence is subjective. How much we say somthing influences something else to determine if it fits with something is always debatable. Either way, influence should not be a counter argument. Something could be influential or not at all, but that does not make it any less relevant. Yes the Land games have many elements that are different. But at it's core it still plays very much like any standard Mario game.
===Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox===
A while ago (November 4th, specifically), I created [[Template:Move infobox]]. After all, we had templates for essentially all the Browse tabs on the wiki sidebar, except for moves. There WERE templates about specific types of moves, such as [[Template:M&L attack infobox]], but no general template in the same vein as items, characters, species, games, locations, etc.  


"The Legend of Zelda games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; all Mario games are ambiguously canon." This is not true if Nintendo themselves say Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are canon. Which they are. According to the Hyrule historia, it says that Nintendo may change the Zelda timeline at any time. So Zelda does not have a completely established canon either.
I discussed it on the Discord briefly, nobody said no, and a bit of feedback later about how it should look and what it should have, I created it. It has since been applied to exactly four pages at the time of writing, half of which I was the one to apply it to. In hindsight, this could've used with a proposal instead of me just making it, so here's a belated one.


As for a solution for Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3. We can treat it like we do with Yoshi's island : Super Mario world 2. We obviously do not have a "Super Mario World series" article. We have a Yoshi series article and "Super Mario World 2" is in it. We can just leave Super Mario Land 3 (Wario Land) in the Wario Land series article and delete the Super Mario Land Series article to put the Super Mario Land games in the main series article. There would be no need for their own section as other main series Mario titles are series with in themselves as well. The Super Mario Galaxy series, the New Super Mario Bros series, the Super Mario Bros series, the 3D series, etc. Despite these all being a series with in a series, there is no need for a "Super Mario Galaxy" series article because it is apart of the main series.
Should we keep '''Template:Move infobox''' around? If we do keep it, is it good as is, or does it need changes?


Glad you like having me debate. If there is no one to challenge anything, things don't always progress. That is why I, the biggest Mario nerd is here. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
:Just as long as we nerds have a civilized debate, I'm fine for that. In fact, I need to go to bed sometime soon. I really don't like one-sided proposals because I fear group-think may take over, and that's bad. :)
'''Deadline''': January 1st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:Influence is subjective, but also relative. We measure influence on how it has impacted future Mario games in terms of appearances and mechanics in later games; let's work from that. Super Mario Land, in that definition, has little influence on future Mario games. Its soundtrack (like its first level), is catchy, but unrecognizable. The invincibility theme is the can-can theme. We have sea dragons shooting fireballs, zombie Pionpis from the Chai Kingdom; the games look and sound very exotic. Oh, Super Mario Land is still a relevant game, don't get me wrong, but it's an obscure game by Mario standards; if it wasn't relevant, we wouldn't be having this argument! Anyhow, why can't we use influence as an argument? We sometimes use consistency and logic for our approach for organization, and Super Mario Land 1 & 2, being very different games, we use that kind of approach, especially with Nintendo's very minimalist approach with the Mario canon.
====Keep Move infobox, as is====
#{{User|Sparks}} I can see this template working really well for moves that aren't in every ''Mario'' game, like [[Spin]]. This has lots of potential!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We don't see why not--having a dedicated Moves infobox could come in handy, especially if we get any more Mario RPGs in the wake of the weird little renaissance period we've been getting with the back-to-back-to-back SMRPG remake, TTYD remake, and release of Brothership. Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It would bring more attention to our move pages. I'm down for that.


:Speaking of Mario canon, I haven't stated that Super Mario Land 1 & 2 aren't canon. I meant to the say that the ''entire'' Mario series, subseries and all, [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|has no established canon]], so ''all'' games/comics/TV shows/film have ambiguous canon, although some subseries have their own set of continuity, most notably, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi. Meanwhile, while ''Link'' timeline is, of course, subject to change as Nintendo sees fit, it's still far more established than the Mario canon, so it's clearer which game is canon and which game isn't. Again, subject to change, but it's unlikely Nintendo is going to overhaul ''The Legend of Zelda'' 's rather convoluted timeline any time soon. It's a different argument from what we're talking here, though, but just throwing it out, and I'm not going to go further into that one. It's in another castle.
====Keep Move infobox, but with changes====


:The issue is that we can easily separate the two games; two games isn't quite enough to make it a series while three games are. Two games are simply a game and its sequel. Your proposal would be an easy solution if Super Mario Land were two games, but it's three games, so Super Mario Land 3 has to be included with the first two games because of the title (it's a horrible title, I agree) and not to confuse our readers. I understand where you're coming from, though, as I do want to incorporate Super Mario Land into the main Mario games because they are indeed 2D Mario platformers, and Nintendo has never acknowledged them as spin offs, so perhaps they are ''technically'' mainstream games, but I'm also uncomfortable on defining them as "mainstream" games because of their little impact and very self-contained continuity. They do look like weird bootlegs from another planet if you think about it, due to how it's been pushed to obscurity and hardly any Mario game, if at all, references them, and it's only now that they've been actually mentioned in an anniversary game. {{User:Mario/sig}} 02:36, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
====Delete Move infobox====


Though let us not forget that influence is not only the use of future elements, but also by the influence of the player. I could argue that the impact and influence of Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have been huge on players across the world. In fact, you say they're so obscure, yet Super Mario Land is the 4th best selling Mario game of all time selling a whopping 18.14 million copies and the sequel being the 10 best selling at a huge 11.18 million. If we were to use the argument of impact (which I argue there is none), Super Mario Land is still regarded among millions of people and still remembered and being bought to this day via 3ds e-shop. If the land games were indeed so obscure...
====Move infobox Comments====
Considering the nature of the attack infoboxes, wouldn't it be weird to have moves all in purple but a Mario & Luigi attack use yellow and green and a Paper Mario attack use white and green? Should there be variants of the Move infobox to match the color schemes of existing templates? If an article is covering multiple related moves, how will the infobox work? (ex. [[Handstand]], [[Cap Throw]], [[Roll]], [[Slide Kick]]... there's more of these than I thought). What happens when a move is referenced in somewhat less "move-y" ways? Okay, that last one is kinda strange, but basically I mean "dashing" in Super Mario Run is just a fancy animation, Mario & Luigi Dream Team has an animation where Giant Luigi crouches (with posing and skidding clearly meant to be a platformer callback), to slide under an attack. Do these instances get incorporated into the infobox? Continuing the train of thought, what about sports games? Yoshi can Flutter Jump as his special action on Mario & Sonic games. Does that count as a method of input for a Flutter Jump? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
:that's a lot of very interesting questions!
:*i went with purple to set it apart from the already taken light red (game), green and white (character), blue (level), pink (location), grey (item) and navy/grey (species) infoboxes. changing the color could be a good idea.
:*as for sorting which moves "count" or not, we have to decide these things for other types of subject too, after all, and they get infoboxes. it's a valid concern, though! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 15:09, December 20, 2024 (EST)


1. No one would remember them (though millions including us do)
2. It would not have sold very much at all (18 million is huge)
3. People would not be buying it today (yet thousands still do via eshop)


So I find the value argument invalid because the Land games have a huge influence on gamers and Nintendo alike. You may argue that the impact of the games have worn off and not as many people remember it, however, this is not true as modern videos such as bentalfloss's have shown that videos on Super Mario Land gets millions of views even to this day.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAtWQ_xn0kI


{{User|Thenintendostooge}}
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?


:And Brentalfloss's ''Dr. Mario'' video has 3 million ''more'' views - doesn't mean we're gonna make that part of the central ''SM'' series too. Not including ''SML'' in the ''SM'' series isn't saying it's not "canon" or a bad game that no one cares about or anything like that, it's just wiki organization, based on the subject matter of the game, the name, the conflicting info Nintendo pumps out over the years, and the context of the other games. Also, just off the top of my head, seeing as Mario only appears in ''WL:SML3'' it makes more sense to lump it in with the rest of the ''SML'' games rather than making a separate ''WL'' series History subsection. The three games are also one of the few cases of explicit continuity in the entire ''Mario'' franchise, with each game directly referencing the events of the previous game, including ''WL:SML3'', so it ''is'' important to have a series page linking the three games together under one roof. Plus there's the fourth, unfinished game, ''[[VB Mario Land]]'', which wouldn't fit in either ''SM'' or ''WL'' series pages, and which is the exact sorta thing which ''shouldn't'' be left to wallow without a parent series (or a convenient place in History sections for a "this almost happened too btw" aside), since that'll be the only way most readers will probably hear about it at all, and spreading info is kinda what we're here to do. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.


===Ban the term beta<nowiki>*</nowiki> and rename pages in the Beta namespace===
This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.


[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_36#Correct_use_of_the_term_.22Beta.22 There was a proposal] suggesting to change the name of the "beta elements" page to something more accurate. Despite being close to succeeding, it was vetoed by the admins with the reason being that "it's not meant to be taken literally" and "it works".
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why
====Blank support====
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.


1: '''It's a bad, innacurate term''': "Beta" in programming language refers to a specific state of development, a prerelease build that's feature-complete and is being bugtested. It's not even a particularly representative term: the beta period happens near the end of development, long after ideas suggested in pre-production are shot down, games are overhauled, unique characters and objects are removed... etc, which is what the "beta" pages usually cover.
====Blank Oppose====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.


Some may argue that "language evolves" and that "beta as it is used here is not meant to be taken literally", but I don't think it's a strong arguments. Sites focused on the documentation of unused/prelease content such as Unseen 64 and TCRF have mocked the usage of "beta" as a catch-all term and lower-quality ressources that use it that way. Other fan wikis like SegaRetro also [http://segaretro.org/Beta do not use] "beta" as a generic term. Fact is, "beta" is nowhere near accepted in professional circles and that's what the wiki claims to be - a professional ressource. Furthermore, why would you use an inacurate and potentially misleading term when dozens of accurate, non-misleading alternatives exist?
====Blank Comments====
I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:::My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::::My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the  odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|Mario}} I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)


2: '''It leads to muddy, vague writing.''' Whenever you see "beta" used on other pages, its catch-all nature muddies the information. "[[Dread Kong|Dread Kong did not exist in the beta version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]" - nevermind that referring to a singular "beta version" betrays a gross ignorance of how game development works, what's the "beta" in question? A preview in a magazine? A proto leaked on the internet? Something suggested in pre-production that was rejected and never programmed into the game? Banning the generic beta  and forcing editors to be more specific (as opposed to the current [[Mariowiki:Good Writing|wishy-washy stance]] that "we know it's bad, but we still use it because reasons I guess") will improve the quality of the information.
Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)


3: '''The "grandfather clause" is never a good excuse:''' Similar to this case, "sub-species" is a long-used term that was found to be innacurate and cause inconsistencies, and the current community concensus is that it should be replaced despite its longstanding nature. "It's what we've always used" is not a good refutation when the usage of a term is proven to lower the credibility and quality of the information, as is the case here.
I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)


As a replacement, I propose beta pages to be renamed '''List of prerelease and unused content'''. "Prelease" perfectly encansuplates the varieties of content that's not present in the final code, and it's wordier, yes, but not overly so. Generic mention of "beta" should not be robotically replaced with a generic "In prelease/unused content of [game]", but rather with a specific term ("magazine preview", "prototype", "unused"), with a piped link to the "List of..." pages.
===Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin===
This proposal is about setting the 2010 [[mw:Skin:Vector|Vector]] as the default wiki skin ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160207064154/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/44/Logo_new-vector_screenshot.png screenshot here]) for desktop users, with the focus being on people who are new to wikis in particular, while obviously keeping the existing MonoBook skin as an option. What made me think to create this proposal is when I made a [[Talk:Main Page]] proposal about the to-do list tasks and how they are more accessible than clicking the "Wiki maintenance" on the sidebar, I had to uncomfortably squint to find "Wiki maintenance" on the wiki sidebar. But Vector-2010 has the sidebar links slightly larger and a bit more spaced out. With the existing interface, there could be some who may struggle to find options listed on the sidebar.


(<nowiki>*</nowiki>: This of course doesn't apply to actual beta builds, but as none of the specific builds documented here are specifically said to be real betas, that precision is kinda irrelevant.)
While we're clearly different from Wikipedia (that's why I'm not Vector-2022, since it'd be too much of a departure and likely uncomfortable for several), I do want to refer to [http://web.archive.org/web/20180213165624/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/05/13/a-new-look-for-wikipedia/ this page], which summarizes why Wikipedia transitioned to it. Though it is vague, they cite accessibility as the reason, which I think this wiki has been taking steps toward doing.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br>
I'll cite my reasons for preferring Vector and applying this to possible people who are visiting a wiki for the first time. The text is larger, which is especially important for larger screen monitors, some of the lesser used tabs are collapsible on the sidebar, summarizing the most commonly used options, and the user links at the top right are also more noticeable and less close to the body of the article where the content is read.
'''Deadline''': June 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT


====Move beta pages to "List of prerelease and unused content" and ban the generic "beta" in mainspace articles====
Though it could take time getting used to the Edit button being on the right (not to mention the search button), the button is at least larger, making it more usable on even lower quality screen monitors, and I like how it's separate from the Page and discussion options, meaning that options that involve viewing articles are on the left while options that involve editing or changing the page in some form are on the right.
#{{User|Glowsquid}}
#{{User|thenintendostooge}} Simply because something works does not make it professional or the most efficient. The simple term beta used on the wiki goes against basic definition and term of the word that is beta.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} "Beta" probably could be validated ''if'' it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal.
#{{User|PowerKamek}}I am okay with this. Beta is a bad term and I think that term may be better. It's a little long, but I like it. Per [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]].
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Okay, I'll let it out: I felt cheated when I saw that veto and I agree that it should've never happened, and ''it should not happen again''. This poorly-handled veto deserves ''all'' the criticism it gets for using administrative powers to shut down legit debate. Anyhow, nonstaff user's opinions aside, by keeping the term "beta" as "a-okay", we're contradicting our own policy, the [[MarioWiki:Good Writing#Frequently misused terms|Good writing's frequently misused terms]]. This policy will cause confusion for newer users by saying it's not okay to use "beta" while in the same time, using that term in the same way. Now, I'm feeling confident to lambast the staff team's reasoning and decision, hear me out. This is the reasoning: ''"'Beta' was never meant to be taken literally as the specific beta version, but as a convenient umbrella term synonymous with 'pre-release'. It works perfectly well as-is; there is no need to change the name.''" This reasoning has several problems. "It's never meant to be taken literally" is dodging the basic argument, that "the terminology has never been a problem in the first place" when that there was an entire proposal about it that garnered massive support (only to be shut down by a handful of people) about the usage of that term. It doesn't matter if we "intended" the term to be "taken literally"; this term certainly confuses, misleads, and misinforms our readers, just as how "subspecies", apparently, is never meant to be taken literally in this wiki. The usage of "beta" as a convenient umbrella term ''is'' the entire problem with that forsaken word. We have a much better umbrella term "pre-release and unused elements" that is not only far superior, but does not flirt with the line into pedantry. *breathes* Okay, pardon my bitter tone, I'm still a bit miffed over that, but I support this proposal as much as the subspecies eradication proposal. They're both about precise and accurate word usage and so the reasoning behind the two should be reasonably similar.
#{{User|Gabumon}} Glowsquid's reasoning makes sense and the proposed change sounds agreeable.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} There's a fine line of difference between being "pedantic" and being "outright wrong" when it comes to terminology, and this clearly falls in the latter case by the reasoning Glowsquid provided. Per Glowsquid and Mario, they've already stated what I was going to say.
#{{User|Yoshi876}} I supported this the last time, I'm supporting it this time. Per all.


====Oppose====
If this proposal passes and others don't like the change, they can always return to the MonoBook option in their [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering|preferences]].


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
@Mario - I agree with practically everything that has been said on the matter so far, and there's not much for me to add besides the fact that using the term as loosely as Mario Wiki does is definitely looked down upon in certain circles (and indeed, there is still quite a lot of rogue instances of "beta" that require cleaning up regardless of this); however, while I don't feel your sentiments are wrong, it's worth acknowledging that it was a bureaucrat who decided to initiate this second proposal. I believe that counts for something! [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:That's true. :) However, I feel like if ''I'' attempted a redux like, it might get vetoed. Oh well, I guess you can't win by doing nothing. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:51, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
@Glowsquid, you should probably correct your support header, "prelease" to "prerelease" {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:17, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:It makes for a terrible pun though. http://forum.mariowiki.com/Smileys/default/dk.gif {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 
===Use explanation text to explain pronouns and whatnot in quotes===
Let's take a look, for example, in [[List of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door quotes#TEC-XX|this section of the List of ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' quotes]]. I see that, since [[Princess Peach]] is referenced many times, there are many "you"s linking to her article, and this is ''just'' to indicate that she is the one being referenced. But it doesn't seem right to use links for this purpose, because for what I know they are supposed to support navigation. Plus, since regular articles usually use only one link to some subject (on the first mention), it would be nice to do the same with quotes.
 
So, I propose that, whenever a subject must be identified in a quote (except on the first mention), we use <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Subject">This kind of explanation</span><noinclude> to identify it.
 
So, this quote from ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'':
*"''If [[Merlon|he]] thinks [[Mario|you]] are the hero, [[Mario|you]] probably are. I think...''"
 
Would become:
*"''If <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Merlon">he</span><noinclude> thinks <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Mario">you</span><noinclude> are the hero, <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Mario">you</span><noinclude> probably are. I think...''"
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 16, 2015, at 23:59 GMT.


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I really don't see the issue of using links to link to character articles? Adding links to character name certainly doesn't create any problems whatsoever, and what you're doing is basically stripping away the link function, since these two function essentially the same: hovering over a name to show a character's name. I'm not exactly against this, but I see this as a pointless change so I'm just going for the do-nothing option, which is essentially this vote.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Admittedly, this vote is largely a matter of preference--we just don't like Vector that much--but we can't think of any real reason to switch to Vector 2010 as the default over the current Monobook beyond the mentioned text spacing; while that is a nice boon, we personally find the weird gradient buttons for the various tabs up top a little grating looking, and we're a fan of the more compact design that Monobook provides--though, this is likely a byproduct of our personal preference for more neatly packed web design. And uh, the less said about the other two options (Vector 2022, and. Timeless. <s>Which is the most dated theme possible, namely to mid-2010s mobile web design.</s>), the better. If you like Vector 2010, that's great, and we're fine with that! Heck, if anyone likes Vector 2022 or Timeless, that's cool too, and more power to them! Variety is the spice of life, after all. But switching it to the default is something that should not be taken lightly, and the reasons for a switch in this proposal feel a little too loosey-goosey for us, we're sorry.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - The span stuff is a huge pain to use, where as links are easy and do no harm. The wiki's studded with blue overall (or whatever colours you have your skins set to: not our fault if they links are garish), and cases like the example where "you" gets liked twice shouldn't happen anyway since the first link establishes who it is. Other times, context can tell us who's the subject matter, or perhaps the identity might not matter, just the soundbite itself for the sake of the speakers' character, so even links wouldn't be necessary. Other times, parenthetical context can be provided to explain the quotes, again without links. Overall, it's really not as bad as the proposal makes it out to be.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|PowerKamek}} That would make sense, but the problem is that the links are showing what characters they mean. In the game, it doesn't show the characters names, but since this is the Mario Wiki, it has more information on everything. I would say, "per all".
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like how MonoBook looks a little more than Vector. It is what I am comfortable with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
#{{User|Boo4761}} People would like to know what characters the quote is referring to. Per all.
#{{User|Drago}} Per Nintendo101. I actually prefer the smaller text of Monobook since you can see more of the page at once. I also want to point out that although logged-in users like us can change the skin in preferences, we'd still be forcing the change on logged-out users.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Drago.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Nintendo101 and Drago. I just don't see any reason to make this change.
#{{User|Altendo}} I'm saying this as a Vector-2010 skin user, and I'll say that people have their preferences. I live Vector-2010 because that is how Wikipedia at least used to look before they switched to Vector (2022); On Wikipedia, Vector was renamed to Vector legacy (2010), while Vector 2022 is named Vector (2022). Although I do prefer Vector-2010, I know a lot of people that prefer Monobook, and even if not, this can be changed in the preferences. No need to change the default skin. I get that IPs can't change their appearance, but aside from that, users can, and what they see doesn't have to be default on the wiki. Everyone can change what they specifically see.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Perhaps we can compromise by replacing all first instances (in general) with links and then making repeated instances with the explanation text fields? {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:48, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
{{@|Camwoodstock}} That is true that it's a major change. It's based mainly upon impression from newcomers from them seeing a more prominent edit tab, slightly larger text size, and other minor details like tab names that are easier to read (including a collapsible feature for the lesser used tab). The skin change was based on old Wikipedia research at the time (like how WikiLove was a result of their research). I have no strong feelings whether this passes or not. Although it's vague, since there's no way to tell the statistics (and the wiki's already successful at the moment), I still have a feeling it could help some, but to each their own. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:32, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:Even so...what does that do that links can't? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:50, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:We feel like if anybody would be capable of providing any statistics on skin usage, it'd be Porple, but even then, we don't actually know if that's one of the things he tracks, and it feels a little silly to pester him over this of all things... ;p {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:55, December 18, 2024 (EST)
::Isn't that accomplishing the same thing with less convenience? It just seems like an unnecessary step to me. What's the downside/negative aspect of having the links in the first place? {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
 
:::@Baby Luigi: it's less of an eyesore than techno-color links all over the place (and maybe mobile users don't have to worry about accidentally touching them or something). We don't link every text in the gallery pages for that same reason, so maybe we can use those fields instead. However, as Time Turner said, it's another piece of wiki code to memorize and incorporate. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:53, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
I'm okay with opposition, but in case of misunderstanding, this proposal isn't about personal preferences so much as what I believe to be a more ergonomic interface to a wider audience. I know we're not Wikipedia, but there's also the consideration that they've used the Vector skin longer than they had for MonoBook. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 13:45, December 19, 2024 (EST)
::::Techno color links? You mean two colors, blue and black? That's not an eye sore at all. Perhaps we can limit the linking to once per pronoun referral but that's about it. It's not that much of an eyestrain unless this wiki uses the yellow color to link things. I don't know how mobile users work though. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:56, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:If it's what "you believe", then it ultimately (and probably unavoidably) is about personal preferences. Anyway, another consideration is the fact that people often prefer what they're used to. I feel like how long this wiki has used its skin is more relevant than how long Wikipedia has. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:39, December 19, 2024 (EST)
:::::That's exactly what I mean. And what I mean by techno-color links, look at the example in the proposal: two links to Mario's page is a bit ludicrous. If those links are meant to give clarification, then we shouldn't have to solely rely on them; stuff like explanation text wrap exists. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:04, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
::{{@|Hewer}} I suppose I'm overthinking the ergonomic interface. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:19, December 20, 2024 (EST)
::::::I still don't see the problem in that? You're making this a bigger deal than it really is. It's still only two colors, blue and black, and it links just as much as any other article on the wiki does. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:06, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:::::::I was exaggerating myself here in terms of "gaudy links", but yeah, it was hard to tell. Sorry for that. {{User:Mario/sig}} 00:54, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 23:51, December 25, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, December 26th, 04:51 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  13. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  16. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  17. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page

This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more Super Mario games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for Mario, Bowser, and many other recurring subjects.

Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.

For example, let's say for Luigi in his appearance in Mario Sports Superstars, there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:

For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see here.

The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

@Hewer I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)

Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork

This proposal will address the bloat some image categories have and make them easier to navigate.

Why is this useful? It makes adding to galleries or finding images to replace much easier. If you want to retake screenshots from a game, you can go to the screenshots category to find them. If you have sprite rips to replace, there's a category for that. The same goes for finding images from a game that aren't on the gallery already and being able to sort them more efficiently. This is also how we divide up character galleries already, such as Gallery:Mario (2010-2019).

Now, I can see a few edge cases, like when games have screenshots of themselves for credits images (i.e. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)). I would still classify these as assets, since they are ripped from the game. Artwork that is used in smaller forms in-game, such as in Super Mario Maker 2, would be classified as artwork if externally released or an asset if it was ripped from the game files. Edge cases shouldn't be too common and they're easy to work out: it's not too different from how we license images or put them in character or subject galleries.

I think the name "assets" would be more useful in shorthand than "sprites and models," in addition to covering textures, so I propose for the category to be called that, but I can change it if there's opposition. The global images category can still exist in the case there's scans, merchandise, video screenshots, or such images that cannot be further categorized.

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) I support this in principle, as long as there's room for discretion on what gets split and what gets left alone. A game with only ten or so pieces of artwork doesn't need a separate category for them, they can just stay in the main images category for that game. Otherwise, this seems useful, I just don't want users to go overboard by purely following the letter of this proposal.
  3. Salmancer (talk) I've tried to see if an image I wanted to use was already uploaded via the category, which would encourage me to make the text and get the article up. Due to the sheer number of images, this is a bad idea. This proposal will make that less of a bad idea for cases where an asset or artwork is being searched for.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) hell yea

Oppose

Comments

This is already being done (e.g. Category:Mario Kart Tour item icons). Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:02, December 23, 2024 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Broaden the scope of the {{rewrite}} template and its variations

With the previous proposal having passed with being more specific as the most voted, I've come up with a proposal about the possibility to make the {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{rewrite-remove}} templates more specific. As you can see, these templates are missing some smaller text. As such, I am just wondering if there is a possibility to have the smaller text added to the {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{rewrite-remove}} templates.

First of all, the {{rewrite}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

However, once the proposal passes, the {{rewrite}} template will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article.

And another thing—the {{rewrite-expand}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information.

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-expand}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by filling in the missing details.

Lastly, the {{rewrite-remove}} currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): ???

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-remove}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s):{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by removing the unnecessary details.

That will be a perfect idea to make the {{rewrite}} template and its variations as more specific as the {{media missing}} and {{unreferenced}} templates. That way, we'll be able to add smaller text to the remaining notice templates in the future.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to December 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Altendo (talk) As far as I can tell, the proposal that was linked added parameters that allowed what was supposed to be referenced to be referenced. This one simply adds a subtitle to the bottom of each template. "Be more specific" does not mean saying general information and helpful links, but rather exactly what needs to be done; in terms of that, the existing templates not only all already have parameters, but filling them out is enforced. As Nightwicked Bowser said, "Be more specific - Similar to this proposal, what exactly needs references must be specified in the template when putting it in the article. A parameter for this will still need to be added." This only adds a subtitle and does not make this "more specific". As for the changes, this is actually harmful in some way, as the (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}}) tag will be added to the subtitle, rather than the main body, which could make it more confusing in my opinion. Feel free to update this and add in what "more specific" actually means, or just change this to "add subtitles" and change the location of (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}}) to the main body, but until then, my vote is staying here.
  2. Mario (talk) Best to keep things simple with these improvement templates.
  3. Technetium (talk) Per Mario.

Comments

Here's how I would fix some things:

First of all, the {{rewrite}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

However, once the proposal passes, the {{rewrite}} template will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten for the following reasons:
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article.

And another thing—the {{rewrite-expand}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information.

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-expand}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information for the following reasons:
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by filling in the missing details.

Lastly, the {{rewrite-remove}} currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): ???

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-remove}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed''' {{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reasons:{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s):
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by removing the unnecessary details.

This should fix some things, and I also recommend you change the title or at least context of this proposal. If so, then I might change my vote. Altendo 19:58, December 9, 2024 (EST)

I fixed this problem for you. How does it look? GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 09:40, December 10, 2024 (EST)

Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox

A while ago (November 4th, specifically), I created Template:Move infobox. After all, we had templates for essentially all the Browse tabs on the wiki sidebar, except for moves. There WERE templates about specific types of moves, such as Template:M&L attack infobox, but no general template in the same vein as items, characters, species, games, locations, etc.

I discussed it on the Discord briefly, nobody said no, and a bit of feedback later about how it should look and what it should have, I created it. It has since been applied to exactly four pages at the time of writing, half of which I was the one to apply it to. In hindsight, this could've used with a proposal instead of me just making it, so here's a belated one.

Should we keep Template:Move infobox around? If we do keep it, is it good as is, or does it need changes?

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: January 1st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Keep Move infobox, as is

  1. Sparks (talk) I can see this template working really well for moves that aren't in every Mario game, like Spin. This has lots of potential!
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We don't see why not--having a dedicated Moves infobox could come in handy, especially if we get any more Mario RPGs in the wake of the weird little renaissance period we've been getting with the back-to-back-to-back SMRPG remake, TTYD remake, and release of Brothership. Per proposal.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Salmancer (talk) It would bring more attention to our move pages. I'm down for that.

Keep Move infobox, but with changes

Delete Move infobox

Move infobox Comments

Considering the nature of the attack infoboxes, wouldn't it be weird to have moves all in purple but a Mario & Luigi attack use yellow and green and a Paper Mario attack use white and green? Should there be variants of the Move infobox to match the color schemes of existing templates? If an article is covering multiple related moves, how will the infobox work? (ex. Handstand, Cap Throw, Roll, Slide Kick... there's more of these than I thought). What happens when a move is referenced in somewhat less "move-y" ways? Okay, that last one is kinda strange, but basically I mean "dashing" in Super Mario Run is just a fancy animation, Mario & Luigi Dream Team has an animation where Giant Luigi crouches (with posing and skidding clearly meant to be a platformer callback), to slide under an attack. Do these instances get incorporated into the infobox? Continuing the train of thought, what about sports games? Yoshi can Flutter Jump as his special action on Mario & Sonic games. Does that count as a method of input for a Flutter Jump? Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

that's a lot of very interesting questions!
  • i went with purple to set it apart from the already taken light red (game), green and white (character), blue (level), pink (location), grey (item) and navy/grey (species) infoboxes. changing the color could be a good idea.
  • as for sorting which moves "count" or not, we have to decide these things for other types of subject too, after all, and they get infoboxes. it's a valid concern, though! eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 15:09, December 20, 2024 (EST)



Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?

Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.

This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Blank support

  1. Mario (talk) Per all.
  2. Ray Trace (talk) Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
  3. PopitTart (talk) (This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)
  4. Altendo (talk) (Look at the code for my reasoning)
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk)
  6. OmegaRuby (talk) While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really are just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at all. (Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)
  7. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
  8. TheDarkStar (talk) - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
  9. Ninja Squid (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Tails777 (talk) It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.

Blank Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
  2. Technetium (talk) I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone does provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type two words.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all (is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)
  6. Axii (talk) Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
  7. Pseudo (talk) Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
  8. Hooded Pitohui (talk) I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides some insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
  9. Mister Wu (talk) Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
  10. DesaMatt (talk) Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.

Blank Comments

I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)

I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
@Mario I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)

Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)

Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. Technetium (talk) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring a written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin

This proposal is about setting the 2010 Vector as the default wiki skin (screenshot here) for desktop users, with the focus being on people who are new to wikis in particular, while obviously keeping the existing MonoBook skin as an option. What made me think to create this proposal is when I made a Talk:Main Page proposal about the to-do list tasks and how they are more accessible than clicking the "Wiki maintenance" on the sidebar, I had to uncomfortably squint to find "Wiki maintenance" on the wiki sidebar. But Vector-2010 has the sidebar links slightly larger and a bit more spaced out. With the existing interface, there could be some who may struggle to find options listed on the sidebar.

While we're clearly different from Wikipedia (that's why I'm not Vector-2022, since it'd be too much of a departure and likely uncomfortable for several), I do want to refer to this page, which summarizes why Wikipedia transitioned to it. Though it is vague, they cite accessibility as the reason, which I think this wiki has been taking steps toward doing.

I'll cite my reasons for preferring Vector and applying this to possible people who are visiting a wiki for the first time. The text is larger, which is especially important for larger screen monitors, some of the lesser used tabs are collapsible on the sidebar, summarizing the most commonly used options, and the user links at the top right are also more noticeable and less close to the body of the article where the content is read.

Though it could take time getting used to the Edit button being on the right (not to mention the search button), the button is at least larger, making it more usable on even lower quality screen monitors, and I like how it's separate from the Page and discussion options, meaning that options that involve viewing articles are on the left while options that involve editing or changing the page in some form are on the right.

If this proposal passes and others don't like the change, they can always return to the MonoBook option in their preferences.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Oppose

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Admittedly, this vote is largely a matter of preference--we just don't like Vector that much--but we can't think of any real reason to switch to Vector 2010 as the default over the current Monobook beyond the mentioned text spacing; while that is a nice boon, we personally find the weird gradient buttons for the various tabs up top a little grating looking, and we're a fan of the more compact design that Monobook provides--though, this is likely a byproduct of our personal preference for more neatly packed web design. And uh, the less said about the other two options (Vector 2022, and. Timeless. Which is the most dated theme possible, namely to mid-2010s mobile web design.), the better. If you like Vector 2010, that's great, and we're fine with that! Heck, if anyone likes Vector 2022 or Timeless, that's cool too, and more power to them! Variety is the spice of life, after all. But switching it to the default is something that should not be taken lightly, and the reasons for a switch in this proposal feel a little too loosey-goosey for us, we're sorry.
  2. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) I like how MonoBook looks a little more than Vector. It is what I am comfortable with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  4. Drago (talk) Per Nintendo101. I actually prefer the smaller text of Monobook since you can see more of the page at once. I also want to point out that although logged-in users like us can change the skin in preferences, we'd still be forcing the change on logged-out users.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Drago.
  6. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101 and Drago. I just don't see any reason to make this change.
  7. Altendo (talk) I'm saying this as a Vector-2010 skin user, and I'll say that people have their preferences. I live Vector-2010 because that is how Wikipedia at least used to look before they switched to Vector (2022); On Wikipedia, Vector was renamed to Vector legacy (2010), while Vector 2022 is named Vector (2022). Although I do prefer Vector-2010, I know a lot of people that prefer Monobook, and even if not, this can be changed in the preferences. No need to change the default skin. I get that IPs can't change their appearance, but aside from that, users can, and what they see doesn't have to be default on the wiki. Everyone can change what they specifically see.

Comments

@Camwoodstock That is true that it's a major change. It's based mainly upon impression from newcomers from them seeing a more prominent edit tab, slightly larger text size, and other minor details like tab names that are easier to read (including a collapsible feature for the lesser used tab). The skin change was based on old Wikipedia research at the time (like how WikiLove was a result of their research). I have no strong feelings whether this passes or not. Although it's vague, since there's no way to tell the statistics (and the wiki's already successful at the moment), I still have a feeling it could help some, but to each their own. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:32, December 18, 2024 (EST)

We feel like if anybody would be capable of providing any statistics on skin usage, it'd be Porple, but even then, we don't actually know if that's one of the things he tracks, and it feels a little silly to pester him over this of all things... ;p ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:55, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm okay with opposition, but in case of misunderstanding, this proposal isn't about personal preferences so much as what I believe to be a more ergonomic interface to a wider audience. I know we're not Wikipedia, but there's also the consideration that they've used the Vector skin longer than they had for MonoBook. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:45, December 19, 2024 (EST)

If it's what "you believe", then it ultimately (and probably unavoidably) is about personal preferences. Anyway, another consideration is the fact that people often prefer what they're used to. I feel like how long this wiki has used its skin is more relevant than how long Wikipedia has. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:39, December 19, 2024 (EST)
@Hewer I suppose I'm overthinking the ergonomic interface. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:19, December 20, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4472551"